I Was Right All Along! Johns Hopkins Research: No Evidence People Are Born Gay or Transgender

[bodecea]

As I've surmised for years. Nobody is born gay. John's Hopkins Research has vindicated me. No! Weak minded people let themselves be seduced by Satan and then become his disciples living out perverted dangerous homosexual lifestyles putting young kids lives in danger, especially when same sex married couples adopt them for their sexual pleasure. Homosexuality is not inate, it is learned. Science has spoken! Now President Trump should sign an executive order making it mandatory for gays to have conversion therapy so they can return to normal and find God.

Johns Hopkins Research: No Evidence People Are Born Gay Or Transgender

Na, my boss is queer as fuck and has two strong kids and 6 grand kids. Don’t know if they are fags yet, but they act like normal kids.

Two kids and six grandkids betrays "queer as F"

Jus sayin

Na, they are all great kids.

Uhm if he's gay as eff and has kids?

Think

Yes...such as ourselves. We are gay and have a daughter about to get married. We hope for grandchildren in the next few years.

 

[martybegan]

Nah, just another chance to get my nuanced viewpoint across.

The thing is, I agree with you’re legal reasoning 100% concerning Obergefell. I feel that would been the better ruling for Loving as well, but that wasn’t the way it was decided.

To me loving and Obergfell are not related. There has always been inter-racial/tribal/clan marriage going back to antiquity. The Miscegenation laws were a response that limited something that was previously accepted, even if not by all countries or groups.

SSM as a LEGAL concept is really only something we have come up with in the past few decades. For something new, the legislative process was the way to go, not the courts.

The other option would be for gay people to come up with their own contract and name, call it "Blarrige" or something like that.

I disagree and I think the aforementioned legal ruling should have been applied the same in both cases. You don't and that's cool. At the end of the day, queers can marry queers and honkies can marry darkies.

The real fun is going to be when a State legalizes plural marriage.

Ironically, the ones pushing that are doing it for religious reasons.....how long before they declare that to refuse plural marriage is against the 1st Amendment?

That's polygamy, and I'm sure there some lawsuit by some FFM or MMF couple out there trying to get a license.

 

[Polishprince]

They don't want to participate in SSM wedding ceremonies. Where is the government benefit in forcing them to do so or ruining them?

The government simply enforces the law; if they didn't, we would have anarchy. Being religious doesn't make you special. You cannot break the law because of it.

So Southern States were just enforcing Plessey and Jim Crow?

Sorry, but allowing a Religious exemption for a non-critical, non-timely, contracted service will not result in anarchy. Forcing them to bake or else, however is a pretty good step towards tyranny.

The whole point is they SHOULDN'T have to break the law, because the law in questions shouldn't be applied to them.

Cripes, you are just as tone deaf as body when it comes to running behind the law's skirt.

I have no problem with the P.A. laws. I have no problem with homosexuality. I have no problem with strict Christians. I do have a problem with saying "the law shouldn't be applied to them." Now that has a very unfair ring to it.

The Irony of a group crying about gays getting "special rights"......getting special rights.

How is the gay person's wedding stopped in any way by having to go somewhere else for a cake?

You want protection from having your feeewwwings hurt by hurting the feewwings (or fining them thousands of dollars) of someone else.

Government doesn't have this job. Stand up for yourself, you gutless hack.

In a lot of cities, there are bakeries that specialize in baking cakes shaped like people's private parts, and they take orders to whatever specifications that the perverted cake eaters want.

Are regular bakeries wrong for not baking these special cakes? Or should they be forced to bake a cake shaped like someone's keister? This gay wedding cake thing is very similar, its a specialized field that offends a lot of people

 

[Lysistrata]

See Employment Division,Dept. of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990)

Employment Division v. Smith

All persons, no matter of what their beliefs are, must obey generally applicable laws.

Allowing exceptions to every state law or regulation affecting religion "would open the prospect of constitutionally required exemptions from civic obligations of almost every conceivable kind."
​

Justice Antonin Scalia

Your theory would create social chaos, with the adult population among 320+ people each going his or her own way, each guided only by a personal belief.

Personally, I don't want to see horse-drawn buggies on the beltway.

Because you are a progressive asshole who thinks everyone should live, think and act like you do.

You are the one how thinks that everyone should live, think, and act like you do. Your comments usually bespeak of wanting to impose your will on others, and cause chaos in the process. You don't seem to realize that not everyone chooses your lifestyle. You think only of yourself.

BTW: there is nothing wrong with being a "progressive." Progress is a good thing.

How is my will being imposed? The couple in the cake situation can still easily get a cake, they can still have a wedding. The baker on the other hand is faced with either going against their moral code or going out of business.

If I owned a bake shop I wouldn't decline gay weddings. My issue is you trying to force others to work against their will over a trivial matter.

Progress isn't by default a good thing, if you want an example try progressing over a cliff.

He wasn't "forced to work" or "forced to go out of business." All he needed to do was to pay the fine and correct his business practices to conform to the law. His business could not be lost by the lose of one cake order. If he lost business, it seems like other people decided not to patronize him.

He didn't want to bake the cake.

He either has to bake the cakes or continue getting fines that will put him out of business.

You know others will go there just looking for a payout.

Stop trying to hide your hatred of this man and people like him. Be honest to yourself.

It's like with abortion, your side has to come up with all these mental exercises to ignore the main point made by the other side. here it's forced compliance over a trivial matter, with abortion it's the fact that a separate life is dying.

I don't hate him. I just think he is a jackass. It was his choice. Nobody needs to mollycoddle people no matter what religious group/cult/whatever (there are a lot of them out there) that they choose to join.

 

[martybegan]

Because you are a progressive asshole who thinks everyone should live, think and act like you do.

You are the one how thinks that everyone should live, think, and act like you do. Your comments usually bespeak of wanting to impose your will on others, and cause chaos in the process. You don't seem to realize that not everyone chooses your lifestyle. You think only of yourself.

BTW: there is nothing wrong with being a "progressive." Progress is a good thing.

How is my will being imposed? The couple in the cake situation can still easily get a cake, they can still have a wedding. The baker on the other hand is faced with either going against their moral code or going out of business.

If I owned a bake shop I wouldn't decline gay weddings. My issue is you trying to force others to work against their will over a trivial matter.

Progress isn't by default a good thing, if you want an example try progressing over a cliff.

He wasn't "forced to work" or "forced to go out of business." All he needed to do was to pay the fine and correct his business practices to conform to the law. His business could not be lost by the lose of one cake order. If he lost business, it seems like other people decided not to patronize him.

He didn't want to bake the cake.

He either has to bake the cakes or continue getting fines that will put him out of business.

You know others will go there just looking for a payout.

Stop trying to hide your hatred of this man and people like him. Be honest to yourself.

It's like with abortion, your side has to come up with all these mental exercises to ignore the main point made by the other side. here it's forced compliance over a trivial matter, with abortion it's the fact that a separate life is dying.

I don't hate him. I just think he is a jackass. It was his choice. Nobody needs to mollycoddle people no matter what religious group/cult/whatever (there are a lot of them out there) that they choose to join.

Yet you want to ruin him or force him to follow your moral code.

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

The Baker..always with the Baker--Here is the thing...The plaintiff and the defendant..in this case..knew each other...I think the plaintiff deliberately set the whole thing up..and the Baker played into their hands.

A tale of one Attention Whore and 2 Drama Queens!

All the baker had to do was claim scheduling problems and refer them to another baker.

All this 'standing on principle' and such tripe, ruined his business. He decided to go that route.
He has let himself be used..by people that do not give a damn about him--his choice.

Do I think the Baker had the right to refuse to bake or decorate a cake..sure he did.
But he could have handled it far better for all concerned.

A wedding cake is not an essential service that the denial of which would constitute an egregious hardship. If he had been the only Baker in 100 miles..then maybe.

 

[Capri]

It IS a compelling government interest that minorities in this country are not discriminated against.

For years, it was considered a compelling government interest that negros be discriminated against. For years, it was considered a compelling government interest that homosexual behavior be repressed.
Using "compelling government interest" to restrict individual liberty is a tricky thing.

 

[Lysistrata]

I look at it different, bode.

We all start off as Normative- that's our nature, so no decision is needed except if you decide to become a she-male or some other kind of non-binary choice. Back in the day, when Sodomy was a crime, it was euphemistically described as a "crime against nature".

The first city when homosexuality was really gloried was Sodom. They loved sodomy so much, they name their city after the act. Imagine if San Francisco decided to get rid of the religious moniker, and changed their name to "Bumphuck". That's basically what the people of Sodom did.

ROTFLMAO! Or...the act was named for the city..rather than the reverse--of course, for those of us that study history..homosexuality was around long before Sodom...it might surprise you to learn the homosexuality has not always been a crime...in the history of the world....which is far, far longer than the history of Judaism, Christianity or any of the cultural roots of our currant culture.
BTW..Fellatio--between opposite sexes was deemed as a 'crime against nature' as well. While beating and raping your wife was considered not only a man's right..but his Christian prerogative!

Crimes Against Nature Law and Legal Definition | USLegal, Inc.

The point is it's against God's laws. When it's all cut and dried that's what matters

Which God/ Whose God?

Your beliefs are cool..for you...however---part of what makes this country great..IMO--is that you do not get to foist them off on me.

Well go suck some junk and hope for the best

And....as I was saying before......it always seems to go to talking about sex acts with straights in these gay discussion threads.

I've noticed that, too. Also they will not talk about whether they themselves have adhered to the "rules" that they claim are "Christian." I think the results of an honest poll, if it were possible to construct one, would be hilarious. No sex before marriage, and then only with your spouse, 'til death do you part. You ask them about this and they will scurry away like cockroaches when the light goes on. Moreover, heterosexuals seem to be awfully fond of some of the sexual practices the CRCs deem to be "immoral."

But this preoccupation with gay sex is only part of the sexual obsession of CRCs. No birth control, no abortion, with sex on demand and "follow the penis" (in "marriage") in some of their cults. Bizarre. Many in need of therapy.

 

[OldLady]

The government simply enforces the law; if they didn't, we would have anarchy. Being religious doesn't make you special. You cannot break the law because of it.

So Southern States were just enforcing Plessey and Jim Crow?

Sorry, but allowing a Religious exemption for a non-critical, non-timely, contracted service will not result in anarchy. Forcing them to bake or else, however is a pretty good step towards tyranny.

The whole point is they SHOULDN'T have to break the law, because the law in questions shouldn't be applied to them.

Cripes, you are just as tone deaf as body when it comes to running behind the law's skirt.

I have no problem with the P.A. laws. I have no problem with homosexuality. I have no problem with strict Christians. I do have a problem with saying "the law shouldn't be applied to them." Now that has a very unfair ring to it.

Yes, because not being able to bake for a living because of a few specific, non essential, non nessasary contracted transactions is totally fucking fair.

The law should be made to impact what is a compelling government interest, not trivial shit like this.

And I notice you danced around my reference to Plessey.

It IS a compelling government interest that minorities in this country are not discriminated against. It is discrimination, pure and simple, no matter how much lipstick you want to put on that pig.
There is nothing trivial about discrimination. There is nothing trivial about a religious group requesting to break the law because they're so special.
No.

So why not force Churches to host Same Sex Weddings?

Discrimination has to have some harm to it to be a compelling government interest. and when it comes to Rights, "correcting" the harm has to be done as gently as possible.

The correct solution would be to make them State their policies up front, via a sign, or on their website.

Gently? Like this? Nice.

A decision like this would set off a tsunami of religious objections to this folk and that. An open invitation to segregation again.

 

[OldLady]

It IS a compelling government interest that minorities in this country are not discriminated against.

For years, it was considered a compelling government interest that negros be discriminated against. For years, it was considered a compelling government interest that homosexual behavior be repressed.
Using "compelling government interest" to restrict individual liberty is a tricky thing.

I was only using the phrase because Marty brought it up. I appreciate the warning.

 

[martybegan]

So Southern States were just enforcing Plessey and Jim Crow?

Sorry, but allowing a Religious exemption for a non-critical, non-timely, contracted service will not result in anarchy. Forcing them to bake or else, however is a pretty good step towards tyranny.

The whole point is they SHOULDN'T have to break the law, because the law in questions shouldn't be applied to them.

Cripes, you are just as tone deaf as body when it comes to running behind the law's skirt.

I have no problem with the P.A. laws. I have no problem with homosexuality. I have no problem with strict Christians. I do have a problem with saying "the law shouldn't be applied to them." Now that has a very unfair ring to it.

Yes, because not being able to bake for a living because of a few specific, non essential, non nessasary contracted transactions is totally fucking fair.

The law should be made to impact what is a compelling government interest, not trivial shit like this.

And I notice you danced around my reference to Plessey.

It IS a compelling government interest that minorities in this country are not discriminated against. It is discrimination, pure and simple, no matter how much lipstick you want to put on that pig.
There is nothing trivial about discrimination. There is nothing trivial about a religious group requesting to break the law because they're so special.
No.

So why not force Churches to host Same Sex Weddings?

Discrimination has to have some harm to it to be a compelling government interest. and when it comes to Rights, "correcting" the harm has to be done as gently as possible.

The correct solution would be to make them State their policies up front, via a sign, or on their website.

Gently? Like this? Nice.

A decision like this would set off a tsunami of religious objections to this folk and that. An open invitation to segregation again.

No, because the businesses in question don't deny point of sale services to anyone. They just don't want to to custom or contracted work for certain events or themes.

Actually kids on the left are the ones pushing for segregation now.

 

[OldLady]

The government simply enforces the law; if they didn't, we would have anarchy. Being religious doesn't make you special. You cannot break the law because of it.

So Southern States were just enforcing Plessey and Jim Crow?

Sorry, but allowing a Religious exemption for a non-critical, non-timely, contracted service will not result in anarchy. Forcing them to bake or else, however is a pretty good step towards tyranny.

The whole point is they SHOULDN'T have to break the law, because the law in questions shouldn't be applied to them.

Cripes, you are just as tone deaf as body when it comes to running behind the law's skirt.

I have no problem with the P.A. laws. I have no problem with homosexuality. I have no problem with strict Christians. I do have a problem with saying "the law shouldn't be applied to them." Now that has a very unfair ring to it.

The Irony of a group crying about gays getting "special rights"......getting special rights.

How is the gay person's wedding stopped in any way by having to go somewhere else for a cake?

You want protection from having your feeewwwings hurt by hurting the feewwings (or fining them thousands of dollars) of someone else.

Government doesn't have this job. Stand up for yourself, you gutless hack.

In a lot of cities, there are bakeries that specialize in baking cakes shaped like people's private parts, and they take orders to whatever specifications that the perverted cake eaters want.

Are regular bakeries wrong for not baking these special cakes? Or should they be forced to bake a cake shaped like someone's keister? This gay wedding cake thing is very similar, its a specialized field that offends a lot of people

It's just got a different topper. Two men in tuxes in this case. You don't even write the couple's name on a wedding cake.

 

[Polishprince]

So Southern States were just enforcing Plessey and Jim Crow?

Sorry, but allowing a Religious exemption for a non-critical, non-timely, contracted service will not result in anarchy. Forcing them to bake or else, however is a pretty good step towards tyranny.

The whole point is they SHOULDN'T have to break the law, because the law in questions shouldn't be applied to them.

Cripes, you are just as tone deaf as body when it comes to running behind the law's skirt.

I have no problem with the P.A. laws. I have no problem with homosexuality. I have no problem with strict Christians. I do have a problem with saying "the law shouldn't be applied to them." Now that has a very unfair ring to it.

Yes, because not being able to bake for a living because of a few specific, non essential, non nessasary contracted transactions is totally fucking fair.

The law should be made to impact what is a compelling government interest, not trivial shit like this.

And I notice you danced around my reference to Plessey.

It IS a compelling government interest that minorities in this country are not discriminated against. It is discrimination, pure and simple, no matter how much lipstick you want to put on that pig.
There is nothing trivial about discrimination. There is nothing trivial about a religious group requesting to break the law because they're so special.
No.

So why not force Churches to host Same Sex Weddings?

Discrimination has to have some harm to it to be a compelling government interest. and when it comes to Rights, "correcting" the harm has to be done as gently as possible.

The correct solution would be to make them State their policies up front, via a sign, or on their website.

Gently? Like this? Nice.

A decision like this would set off a tsunami of religious objections to this folk and that. An open invitation to segregation again.

The fact of the matter is that any number of people that you deal with on daily basis could be taking it in the caboose. But there is no reason for anyone to mention it, unless you are of the same bent.

That's why discrimination against homosexuality is such a myth.

 

[martybegan]

It IS a compelling government interest that minorities in this country are not discriminated against.

For years, it was considered a compelling government interest that negros be discriminated against. For years, it was considered a compelling government interest that homosexual behavior be repressed.
Using "compelling government interest" to restrict individual liberty is a tricky thing.

No, it was a personal interest. The government got involved due to Plessey being allowed by the SC.

 

[ph3iron]

As I've surmised for years. Nobody is born gay. John's Hopkins Research has vindicated me. No! Weak minded people let themselves be seduced by Satan and then become his disciples living out perverted dangerous homosexual lifestyles putting young kids lives in danger, especially when same sex married couples adopt them for their sexual pleasure. Homosexuality is not inate, it is learned. Science has spoken! Now President Trump should sign an executive order making it mandatory for gays to have conversion therapy so they can return to normal and find God.

Johns Hopkins Research: No Evidence People Are Born Gay Or Transgender

How do you discuss anything with a rube who has a MAGA hat.
Our wwi Nazi group name and too dumb to know it,
Or maybe he does???

 

[Polishprince]

So Southern States were just enforcing Plessey and Jim Crow?

Sorry, but allowing a Religious exemption for a non-critical, non-timely, contracted service will not result in anarchy. Forcing them to bake or else, however is a pretty good step towards tyranny.

The whole point is they SHOULDN'T have to break the law, because the law in questions shouldn't be applied to them.

Cripes, you are just as tone deaf as body when it comes to running behind the law's skirt.

I have no problem with the P.A. laws. I have no problem with homosexuality. I have no problem with strict Christians. I do have a problem with saying "the law shouldn't be applied to them." Now that has a very unfair ring to it.

The Irony of a group crying about gays getting "special rights"......getting special rights.

How is the gay person's wedding stopped in any way by having to go somewhere else for a cake?

You want protection from having your feeewwwings hurt by hurting the feewwings (or fining them thousands of dollars) of someone else.

Government doesn't have this job. Stand up for yourself, you gutless hack.

In a lot of cities, there are bakeries that specialize in baking cakes shaped like people's private parts, and they take orders to whatever specifications that the perverted cake eaters want.

Are regular bakeries wrong for not baking these special cakes? Or should they be forced to bake a cake shaped like someone's keister? This gay wedding cake thing is very similar, its a specialized field that offends a lot of people

It's just got a different topper. Two men in tuxes in this case. You don't even write the couple's name on a wedding cake.

Actually, the "woman" in a gay relationship wears a wedding gown, the "man" in the relationship wears the tux.

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

So Southern States were just enforcing Plessey and Jim Crow?

Sorry, but allowing a Religious exemption for a non-critical, non-timely, contracted service will not result in anarchy. Forcing them to bake or else, however is a pretty good step towards tyranny.

The whole point is they SHOULDN'T have to break the law, because the law in questions shouldn't be applied to them.

Cripes, you are just as tone deaf as body when it comes to running behind the law's skirt.

I have no problem with the P.A. laws. I have no problem with homosexuality. I have no problem with strict Christians. I do have a problem with saying "the law shouldn't be applied to them." Now that has a very unfair ring to it.

Yes, because not being able to bake for a living because of a few specific, non essential, non nessasary contracted transactions is totally fucking fair.

The law should be made to impact what is a compelling government interest, not trivial shit like this.

And I notice you danced around my reference to Plessey.

It IS a compelling government interest that minorities in this country are not discriminated against. It is discrimination, pure and simple, no matter how much lipstick you want to put on that pig.
There is nothing trivial about discrimination. There is nothing trivial about a religious group requesting to break the law because they're so special.
No.

So why not force Churches to host Same Sex Weddings?

Discrimination has to have some harm to it to be a compelling government interest. and when it comes to Rights, "correcting" the harm has to be done as gently as possible.

The correct solution would be to make them State their policies up front, via a sign, or on their website.

Gently? Like this? Nice.

A decision like this would set off a tsunami of religious objections to this folk and that. An open invitation to segregation again.

Well...you are making a big leap there...and let us be clear...the gay couple could have walked in the store and bought whatever they wanted..they requested a special service...--a decoration that the baker found offensive. There were many solutions to this issue that would not have taken it to level that it rose to--and i think that both parties suffered greatly from their poor decision making skills.

No sane person is suggesting that we legally allow discrimination......for one thing..how, exactly do you determine 'Gay"...LOL!

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

I have no problem with the P.A. laws. I have no problem with homosexuality. I have no problem with strict Christians. I do have a problem with saying "the law shouldn't be applied to them." Now that has a very unfair ring to it.

The Irony of a group crying about gays getting "special rights"......getting special rights.

How is the gay person's wedding stopped in any way by having to go somewhere else for a cake?

You want protection from having your feeewwwings hurt by hurting the feewwings (or fining them thousands of dollars) of someone else.

Government doesn't have this job. Stand up for yourself, you gutless hack.

In a lot of cities, there are bakeries that specialize in baking cakes shaped like people's private parts, and they take orders to whatever specifications that the perverted cake eaters want.

Are regular bakeries wrong for not baking these special cakes? Or should they be forced to bake a cake shaped like someone's keister? This gay wedding cake thing is very similar, its a specialized field that offends a lot of people

It's just got a different topper. Two men in tuxes in this case. You don't even write the couple's name on a wedding cake.

Actually, the "woman" in a gay relationship wears a wedding gown, the "man" in the relationship wears the tux.

Do tell...been to lot of gay weddings, have you?

FYI--not all gay relationships fall into the partner's conforming to Hetero stereotype.

Some are just Bromances with benefits. Some are two old biddies--and sex doesn't really take center stage at all.

People are people..and we are far more variegated that you might suspect.

 

[Lysistrata]

See Employment Division,Dept. of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990)

Employment Division v. Smith

All persons, no matter of what their beliefs are, must obey generally applicable laws.

Allowing exceptions to every state law or regulation affecting religion "would open the prospect of constitutionally required exemptions from civic obligations of almost every conceivable kind."
​

Justice Antonin Scalia

Your theory would create social chaos, with the adult population among 320+ people each going his or her own way, each guided only by a personal belief.

Personally, I don't want to see horse-drawn buggies on the beltway.

lol
Ok, How about people have the decency not to try and force their views on other people through business? Why force someone to To do something they obviously object to? But then again you are a control freak... It’s a control freak thing I do not understand

"Decency" has nothing to do with it. Nobody tried to force any view on anyone. He has/had a business license. He had quite an elaborate website. Even on it, he did not indicate that the service that he was offering was restricted to certain members of the public. It was a general invitation to patronize his business. He did not do anything at all to warn the public of his religious proclivities. All that happened was that his violation of anti-discrimination laws was reported through the established procedure.

The couple did nothing wrong, and they are blameless in this matter. I notice that the anti-LGBT types always try to flip the blame onto LGBTs, which is BS. This guy failed in his responsibilities.

Again, just because you sell something doesn't mean you lose your Right to Free Exercise.

Sorry, but just going to another baker is the right move here, unless you have an axe to grind.

We know YOU have an axe to grind, a tiny, little useless axe to grind.

The "go another baker" thing doesn't fly. It puts the onus on the customer when it is the proprietor whose decision it was and who is totally responsible. It is not the responsibility of discrimination victims to go off quietly with their tails tucked between their legs.

If I want a ham sandwich, I know i can't go to a jewish deli. Moreover, I don't expect to get one at a Jewish deli.

So instead of the person having to find another baker for a non-timely, non-essential, contracted service, the solution is to fine into oblivion the offender, because he/she violated Lysistrata's "religion" of FUCK RELIGIOUS PEOPLE BECAUSE I HATE THEM.

We all know who the real hater is here.....

How so? We have to distinguish between who, and what religion. The term "religious people" is entirely generic, whether we are speaking of Christians, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, Pagans, and whatever else. They are all separated into various sects.

What is your obsession with your caps lock?

 

[Polishprince]

The Irony of a group crying about gays getting "special rights"......getting special rights.

How is the gay person's wedding stopped in any way by having to go somewhere else for a cake?

You want protection from having your feeewwwings hurt by hurting the feewwings (or fining them thousands of dollars) of someone else.

Government doesn't have this job. Stand up for yourself, you gutless hack.

In a lot of cities, there are bakeries that specialize in baking cakes shaped like people's private parts, and they take orders to whatever specifications that the perverted cake eaters want.

Are regular bakeries wrong for not baking these special cakes? Or should they be forced to bake a cake shaped like someone's keister? This gay wedding cake thing is very similar, its a specialized field that offends a lot of people

It's just got a different topper. Two men in tuxes in this case. You don't even write the couple's name on a wedding cake.

Actually, the "woman" in a gay relationship wears a wedding gown, the "man" in the relationship wears the tux.

Do tell...been to lot of gay weddings, have you?

FYI--not all gay relationships fall into the partner's conforming to Hetero stereotype.

Some are just Bromances with benefits. Some are two old biddies--and sex doesn't really take center stage at all.

People are people..and we are far more variegated that you might suspect.

I've seen many gay weddings on TV, a lot of homosexuals over the years have tied the knot on the Springer program and the distinguished Mayor Emeritus of Cincinnati had a minister on staff to do the nuptials.